Subscribe to Our Mailing List

The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Commemoration of the Pope

Letter to a ROCA Deacon from Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna

Thank you for the copy of the response from
Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh, by way of Father George Livanos, to
my comments about the commemoration of the Pope in
Constantinople. I do not know the Priest in question, but I
certainly know Bishop Maximos. One reason that I do not subscribe
to an Orthodox computer forum on a regular basis is that I abhor
the tone of many of the exchanges between clergy. We all agree or
disagree on certain matters; surely, however, when we disagree,
we can do so without name-calling and vulgarity. I would not have
expected, then, to hear a gentleman like Bishop Maximos accuse me
of spreading "outright lies" or of being
"unreliable," even on a computer forum.

In the early 80s, prior to the purchase
of our monastery in Ohio by his Diocese, I met twice with Bishop
Maximos, once in the presence of Metropolitan Cyprian, who was
visiting the U.S. On both occasions, His Grace struck me as a
conservative, traditional Orthodox clergyman. When directly
confronted by Metropolitan Cyprian about accusations in America
against the validity of the Old Calendarists ordinations,
Bishop Maximos was quick to acknowledge that the Russian Orthodox
Church Abroad (ROCA) has Apostolic Succession; that his Church
once maintained communion with the ROCA (up to the time of
Metropolitan Philarets open epistles against the ecumenical
activities of the Patriarchate of Constantinople); that, whatever
the differences between the Greek Old and New Calendarists, the
Greek Old Calendarists in communion with the ROCA have a valid
clergy; and that dialogue between the two Greek factions is an
absolute necessity. He asked for cooperation between our monastic
community and his Churchat a time before I was forbidden to
publish with the presses of the Greek Archdiocese, and for some
time after that, I wrote books, articles, and reviews for the
Hellenic College Press, the Holy Cross Orthodox Press, and
"The Greek Orthodox Theological Review."

Though I have seen Bishop Maximos waffle in his
conservatism in the last decade, supporting both the "Branch
Theory" of the Church and the exclusivity of Orthodoxy and
arguing both for union with Rome and caution with regards to
ecumenism, I find it difficult to believe that he has fallen to
accusing others of open lies and to questioning their integrity
or reliability. If this is the case, then the same sickness that
we see in the Orthodox computer forums is far more insidious and
expansive than we imagine.

I would for the moment, despite the vile
language attributed to Bishop Maximos by Father Livanos, prefer
to think that Bishop Maximos reactions to my claim about
Constantinople and the commemoration of the Pope have been taken
out of context or misquoted. Needless to say, in responding to
the excessive ecumenism of the cumenical Patriarchate and other
national Orthodox Churches, we have no reason or desire to lie. I
personally believe that the Orthodox Church is still
onethough in good conscience, I cannot maintain communion
with those ailing modernists who compromise the self-definition
of Orthodoxy as the singular Church of Christ, and I wish
that the things that we see were not true. Moreover, it is not
we, who see these things, who bear the burden of proofsince
we have not violated the Canons of the Church by praying with
heretics, but those who participate in ecumenical
infractions of good Church order. It is they who must stop
arguing witlessly about whether or not the Orthodox Church is in
fact separated from Rome, whether She considers Rome to be
heretical, or whether we can pray with those with whom we have no
communion, and begin addressing our questions in a
straight-forward way, without calling us liars or charlatans.

To repeat my earlier comments, which engendered
this unseemly exchange, with the uncanonical lifting of the
Anathemas against Rome by Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965 (a
Patriarch, the mere "first among equals," cannot act
unilaterally in this way, especially after the Great Schism
entered into the very "conscience of the Church,"
wherein lies ultimate authority in Orthodoxy), the Pope was
commemorated in the Diptychs in Constantinople. So it was that,
in an "Open
Letter to His Eminence Iakovos, Greek
Archbishop of North and South America" in 1969, Metropolitan
Philaret, Chief Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,
protested against "the inclusion in the Diptychs by His All
Holiness Athenagoras of the name of the Pope of Rome..., which
was announced in His [All] Holiness Christmas Message [in
1968]" ("The Word," Vol. V, No. 2, March-April,
1969, p. 73). The restoration of the Pope of Rome to the Diptychs
of the Great Church is a practice which, in published accounts to
that effect, reportedly persists to this day ("Phone
Orthodoxon," Vol. VI, No. 2 [1995], p. 18).

When we recall that, during the visit of Pope
Paul VI to Istanbul in July 1967, he was received by the
Patriarch as the "first in honor among us" and given an
episcopal stole at the proclamation of "Axios" (by
which Orthodox clergy are vested and confirmed at their
ordinations) (see "The Observer," Vol. XXXIII, No. 570,
p. 243), I think it not outrageous that I called the practice of
commemorating the Pope in Rome "well known," thereby
avoiding the pejorative term "infamous." Indeed, did
not a clergyman of the Greek Archdiocese, and a canonist at that,
declare that "the removal of the mutual excommunication
between the two churches, two years ago, restores canonical
relations between Rome and New Rome. This restoration is a
canonical necessity" (Father Theodore Thalassinos, "The
Goyan," Winter 1968 [quoted in Macris, Priest G.P., The
Orthodox Churchand the Ecumenical Movement During the
Period 1920-1969 (Seattle, WA: St. Nectarios Press, 1986, p.
137]). We have neither seen nor heard anything, since the
60s, to discount the ecumenical excesses which I have
cited.

Now, if what I have accepted as fact is wrong,
I am quite willing to be corrected. But if I am wrong, this
certainly does not suggest that what I have reported is an
"outright" lie or that I lack integrity or reliability.
Moreover, any response to my words must explain why, in a number
of joint prayer services between the Patriarch of Constantinople
and the Pope over the past three decades, deacons of the Pope
have consistently commemorated the Patriarch and the
Patriarchs Deacons the Pope. If the commemoration of the
Pope in Constantinople has ceased, then let the Patriarch of
Constantinople state this openly, so that we can rejoice at the
fact. Rather than call us liars in the face of our pain at the
compromise of our Faith at the highest levels, let the modernists
comfort us with open statements of Orthodox Faith and open
rejections of the excesses of ecumenism. But again, let them do
so honestly, not only without name-calling, but without skirting
the real issue. For the commemoration of the Pope in
Constantinople has not been limited to the Diptychs (see supra),
to the "Anaphora" (see "Orthodoxos
Enemerosis," Vol. XV-XVI. January-June [1995], pp. 42-43,
esp. n. 17, p. 43), or to ecumenical prayer services, but to the
official reception of the Pope by Orthodox Bishops as a virtual
Prelate of our Church, as in the "Doxology" which was
sung when the Pope visited the Phanar in 1979. Is this, too, not
a liturgical commemoration of the Pope, since in the practice of
the Great Church it is a ceremony for the reception of a Bishop?

More to the point, if Bishop Maximos believes,
in contrast to what he told me and Metropolitan Cyprian several
years ago in what was a very cordial exchange, that the Roman
Catholic Church has Grace (see the newest issue of "Orthodox
Tradition" [Vol. XIII, No. 1 (1996), pp. 2ff.]) and His
Graces astonishing remarks about the validity of Roman
Catholic orders and sacraments), let him say so unequivocally. He
has every right to believe this and to justify it by any of a
number of theological and ecclesiological arguments (and he is an
accomplished theologian, in this sense), just as we have every
right to hold firm to a far more traditional and conservative
view of the Church, which maintains that the Roman Catholic
church is separated from Orthodoxy and has withered, after many
centuries of separation. At the same time, if he believes this,
he should cease attacking us for exposing what is to us a scandal
and to him a victory for religious universalism. If, on the other
hand, His Grace actually holds to a traditional and an ecumenical
view of the Church at the same time, as he often seems to do,
then let him admit that this kind of position entails certain
contradictions. If we point these contradictions out, it is
simply to voice our objections to his ecumenical views, not to
question the integrity of his traditionalist views. We would ask
that he return the same kind of charitable consideration to us,
as he reacts to our rather monolithic ecclesiological position.

I, for one, see no reason to continue trying to
prove what others say is not true. Again, those who have embraced
ecumenism at the same time that they claim to uphold the beliefs
of Orthodoxy must prove to us that what we see and hear is not
true. It is not we who bear the burden of proving to the
ecumenists that we are seeing what we see. Moreover, if we are
simply to be dismissed as liars and lacking integrity for
challenging what causes discomfort to others, then we are engaged
in a fruitless pursuit. It is well known that, before entering
the monastic life, I was a university professor. I always told my
students that they should disagree with others honestly, defend
their own positions with a clear acceptance of both those things
that supported and compromised them, and do so with courtesy and
respect for others. I think that my advice to my former students
would greatly benefit our contemporary Orthodox clergy and the
exchanges in which the engage.